Primus Pilus

Day after sweltering day on the banks of the Modi stream, archeologists are dealing shattering blows to traditional views of Chinese history as they work their way through the parched, yellow earth. One of the world's great cities once flourished here at Jinsha village in China's southwest, the 1000 B.C. equivalent of New York or Paris, and then inexplicably vanished, leaving no trace behind in the historical records. via Yahoo

Yes, though I watched most of it, I gave up commenting on the brutality of its plot. Its shameless destruction of incredibly well known and interesting history (which is affecting the ratings I believe) will now make other execs think twice before trying 'period' television series.

Well said... I will still watch tonight however as some sort of sadistic punishment for myself. I looked up the ratings for the show, btw. They are quite abysmal, and judging by the series cost, I'm sure it will not enter into a continuing season. I think 'Rome' will fair much better, people will expect better and it should be proven out. (fingers crossed)

He's a guy that won the first series of that show 'Last Comic Standing'. I found his bit to be very repetitive and stereotypical.

Indeed, I only point out that he lost to one of history's greatest generals. Had Pompey been good enough to follow up, he would have likely earned a place high on the list. And had he won, just how different might have western culture developed? Considering that Caesar restabilized and invigorated a sinking ship, and provided history with an equally capable heir, the civil wars following the defeat of Caesar (between any number of candidates) may have annhilited the very fragile state of affairs. (Despite any romantic anti-Caesarean thoughts, Caesar's death would not have altered the course of Roman politics... which was spiraling ever out of control for over a century. And yes, its possible that a Pompeian victory may have resulted in temporary stability, but the Republic had long since proven itself incapable and its fall was inevitable and irreversable). It's an interesting concept but probably better left to its own topic.

He's not too funny when he raises interest rates

Pompeius' reputation suffers as a result of his ultimate loss to Caesar (despite a near total victory at Dyrrhachium). Some of his eastern campaigns have also been questioned because of the work already achieved by previous commanders, but in reality, Pompey won one overwhelming battle after another in his career. If not for the political infighting of his senatorial entourage after Dyrrachium, history may have turned out very differently.

Once again Ursus eloquently points out that the underlying and sometimes overriding structure of the Roman social system always came back to the social order. Homosexuality, while in many cases was looked upon mockingly, only really became a problem if it interfered with class stucture and social heirarchy. Roman aristocrats had no concern over Greek actors and entertainers defiling eachother with all sorts of sexual depravity, but when it came to men such as Caesar, homsexuality was just the sort of political tool which they hoped to tear down a career. (Of course in his case, such attacks made little difference, and in fact likely helped inspire him)

Welcome to all recent arrivals.... and FaexPopuli, I can't vouch for you sanity, but I can assure you there are plenty of Romanophiles here

The Picts are truly one of those cultural unknowns similar to the Basques. There are plenty of theories, but nobody is precisely sure where they came from and when, and their exact genetic classification (ie. Celtic, Germanic, some other strange native development, etc.) Suffice to say though, Lacertus is right in that they developed into a sort of political entity as described, but their origination is quite hotly debated.

I hope everyone replies to this thread... I found it when Moonlapse gave me the url

Rome Total Realism I believe their complete mod RTR 6.0 is due for release in a couple of weeks

Jona Lendering delves into it a bit Livius Teutoburg

Indeed, the oration would clearly identify Constantine as a devout Christian. However, its authenticity is a matter of furious debate, and I personally attribute its writing to Eusebius and not to Constantine. Compare it to Eusebius' other works and you may (or may not) see the similarity. Constantine's conversion is rather irrelevent though in the big scheme of things. While whether or not he was a pagan, a christian or a combination of whatever was necessary to rule a diverse empire is unclear, its quite clear that he paved the path for Christianity to dominate the religion of the western world and began the process of brutally dismantling paganism.

From Suetonius regarding the song sung by Caesar's men at his quadruple triumph "All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him; Lo! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls, Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror." Men of Rome, keep close to your consorts, here's a bald adulterer. Gold in Gaul you spent in dalliance, which you borrowed here in Rome."

Yes, it's a fiendish addiction

Just post me a link as soon as it has its own home on amazon, Skarr and I'll get it on the list pronto. I do plan on doing a review the book and giving it it's own page as well... I just have my fingers crossed that I don't blush too bad at the 'racy' parts

Legionary Gear

Sitting halfway through tonight's episode, we find that 'Empire' strays wildly from history and into the realm of complete fiction. I won't even give it the credit of labelling it historical fiction. Just some ridiculousness... "Arkham" gladiator dungeon.. LOL General Magonius Brutus as Pontifex Maximus The depiction of the Senate and its strange 'control' of the Republic What happened to Antonius etc. etc. Alas... all hope now rests with HBO/BBC.

Yes, they were all Imperators, hence the term emperor, but they did not use Imperator to truly define themselves. The English word Emperor is more closely related in definition to the Latin Princeps than the Latin Imperator. I initially dismissed the original post because I personally relate the word Emperor to be an English bastardization. Judging by some of the response here, perhaps its not as common knowledge as I thought, and the Roman Emperors have been truly misdefined?

Kalkriese is the location of early segmentata armor finds, not the ancient name of the armor. Its in the same context as Newstead and Corbridge armor types. Its how we refer to it today, not how the Romans did.

So you are saying Germanicus was actually better than Caesar, or you just wanted to be different?

To my knowledge there are no surviving records of names for Crassus' legions. Some came from Gaul with Publius Crassus (Crassus' son and a Caesarian general) but I can't even recall any ancient sources mentioning where Crassus even recruited the others. (His campaign was a painful embarrassment to Rome and was not overly detailed in the ancient accounts). One Augustan coin from 20 BC, showing the return of the standards shows an X on the standard that is returned. Perhaps one legion was Legio X, perhaps not. Regardless, at this point, all 7 legions would have been numbered and not given extra names of distinction. For the most part, the imperators attempted to not repeat legionary numbers, but Consular forces were always numbered in order of recruitment, beginning with Legio I. Crassus could have taken Legio I - VII (Syria was a pro consular command). For comparison purposes... Caesar's Legions at Livius.org Unfortunately, I can't recall ever seeing a complete listing of Pompey's existing legions, or any other Senatorial forces at the time. This was a transitional period in which either system could still exist.

Decanus was indeed the head of a tent group. Considering that this was an 8 man group his command rank was obviously quite low. Decurion was the cavalry equivelant of Centurion. Although he only commanded a 32 man turmae, as opposed to a full century, rank structure appears to be equivelant. A full century appears to have actually been 80 men, not 100. However, this is purely theory. Actual numbers seem to have fluctuated anywhere between 30 and 200 men. However, 80 men per normal century is generally accepted among military scholars. If you use 80, your book won't be beaten up as inaccurate. Yes Republican legions were never intended to be continual standing armies, even after the Marian reforms and during the imperatorial period. They were generally not reinforced and would continue to shrink until retirement, when the entire force would be retired at the same time. This made it far easier in the Republican era to properly track length of service, etc. When more men were needed, rather than reinforce the old, standard practice was to recruit new legions. In the imperial era, when the legions remained as standing armies, they were regularly reinforced to keep them at least close to optimum strength. Don't confuse the ability of the soldiers with the ability of the officers. On the field of battle cohorts were just arranged in such a manner so veterans compliment raw recruits, etc. The ability of the legionaries did not represent the rank of the commander (with the exception of the first cohort). Consider it this way... should the weakest troops also have the weakest commander? That might help clear it up. Good luck with your writing!

Segementata was not the ancient name for Roman plate. No name survives.